Wakilii

Kironde v Don Uganda Limited (Civil Suit CS 365 of 2010)

High Court · [2014] UGCOMMC 231 · 2014 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of debt arising from supply of fuel on credit
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with interest and costs; counterclaim dismissed

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for UGX 142,935,100 being the outstanding balance for fuel supplied. The court found that the parties had an oral contract whereby the defendant deposited money in advance before fuel delivery. Based on a jointly commissioned audit report by KSK Associates and corroborating evidence, the court established that the plaintiff had supplied fuel which the defendant received but failed to pay for in full. The counterclaim for undelivered fuel failed.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with interest and costs; counterclaim dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff, a businessman dealing in fuel and lubricants, contracted with the defendant company to supply fuel between 8 February 2010 and 3 May 2010. The plaintiff supplied various quantities of fuel to the defendant on credit and part payment basis. The defendant paid off some amounts on delivery but failed to clear an outstanding balance of UGX 142,935,100. The plaintiff demanded payment, and when the defendant failed to pay, he instituted suit for recovery. The defendant denied liability, claiming it made advance deposits for fuel orders and counterclaimed for UGX 92,800,000 allegedly paid for fuel that was never delivered. The parties jointly appointed KSK Associates, Certified Public Accountants, to audit their transactions. The audit report confirmed that the defendant had deposited UGX 1,739,421,100 on the plaintiff's Bank of Africa account and that the plaintiff had delivered fuel totaling 873,000 litres out of 893,000 litres ordered.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant/Counter claimant is liable to the Plaintiff/Counter defendant in the sums claimed in the plaint.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff/Counter claimant is liable to the Defendant/Counter claimant in the sum claimed in the counterclaim.
  3. Whether the Defendant/Counter claimant was depositing the money for the fuel ordered for on the Plaintiff's account in advance prior to supply of fuel ordered for.
  4. Whether the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant was supplying the sued upon fuel to the Defendant/Counter claimant on the basis of cash payments prior to the supply, on credit, or on part payment with balances.

Orders

  • The Defendant pays to the Plaintiff Shs. 142,935,100/=
  • Interest thereon at 23% per annum from date of default until payment in full
  • Costs of the suit to the Plaintiff

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Expert Evidence — Jointly Appointed Expert — Binding Effect on Parties
Where parties jointly and willingly commission an expert to investigate and report to court, and both parties cooperate openly with the investigation, the expert's report binds both parties and the court will not interfere with it provided the rules of natural justice were observed in its preparation.
Contract Law — Oral Contracts — Proof of Terms — Business Dealings Between Parties
The absence of a documented contract does not prevent parties from transacting business together where both parties acknowledge their dealings and the terms can be established through evidence of their conduct and mutual acceptance of how business was conducted.
Civil Procedure — Interest — Discretion of Court — Just and Reasonable Rate
Under Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, where interest was not previously agreed between parties, the court may award interest that is just and reasonable, taking into account the need to cushion the awarded amount against inflation and currency depreciation. A commercial rate that protects the plaintiff against economic vagaries is appropriate.
Civil Procedure — Special Damages — Pleading and Proof Requirements
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Merely attaching a receipt without adequate proof is insufficient to establish entitlement to special damages.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion of Court — Costs Follow the Event
Under Section 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, costs are awarded at the discretion of the court and always follow the event unless for good reasons the court directs otherwise. Where a plaintiff succeeds on most issues and there is no compelling reason to deny costs, costs should be awarded.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (10)

  • Tight Security Ltd v Goldstar Insurance Company (High Court Civil Suit No. 655 of 2002)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Stephen Mabosi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1995)
  • Liska Ltd v DeAngelis [1969] EA 6
  • National Pharmacy Ltd v KCC [1979] HCB 256
  • Superior Construction & Engineering Ltd v Notay Engineering Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 24 of 1992)
  • Mark Extraction Enterprises Ltd v M/s Nalongo Orphanage (High Court Civil Suit No. 04 of 1996)
  • Stroms v Hutchinson (1905) AC 515
  • Dr Godwin Turyasingura v Wheels of Africa (High Court Civil Suit No. 485 of 1995)
  • Jennifer Rwanyindo Aurelia & Anor v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1999)
  • National Pharmacy Ltd v Kampala City Council [1979] HCB 25

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Kironde v Don Uganda Limited (Civil Suit CS 365 of 2010) [2014] UGCommC 231 (11 July 2014)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.